Alfaro Cisneros v. Bradford, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Gerson Isai Alfaro Cisneros,
Petitioner,
v.
Bret Bradford, et al.,
Respondents.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-05700
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 23, 2026, Petitioner Gerson Isai Alfaro Cisneros filed a
motion to withdraw his request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	Dkt. 12.
According to the motion, Cisneros’s habeas petition—which asked that he be
released from the custody of the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement,
or, alternatively, receive a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)—is
moot because an Immigration Judge recently granted his motion for voluntary
departure under 8 U.S.C. § 1229. 	Dkt. 12 at 2; see also Dkt. 12-1 at 2-3
(January 12, 2026 order).
“Article III of the Constitution limits federal ‘Judicial Power,’ that is,
federal-court jurisdiction, to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” U.S. Parole Comm’n
v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 395 (1980). A case becomes moot “when the issues
presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 18, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05700 Document 13 Filed 02/18/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
the outcome.” 	Id. at 396 (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496
(1969)). If a controversy becomes moot, the case must be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990).
Because he has been granted voluntary departure, Cisneros is no longer
subject to continued immigration detention. That leaves no live issue for this
Court to resolve. 	Accordingly, Cisneros’s motion to withdraw his habeas
petition should be granted, and this case should be dismissed as moot.
Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, it is 	RECOMMENDED 	that Cisneros’s
motion to withdraw (Dkt. 12) his habeas petition be GRANTED and that this
case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.
The parties have fourteen days from service of this Report and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72(b). 	Failure 	to 	file 	timely 	objections 	will 	preclude
appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions, except for
plain error. 	Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825
(5th Cir. 2015).
Signed on February 18, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________
Yvonne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-05700 Document 13 Filed 02/18/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2